#13 - That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus

[po1016]

For 44, Can someone explain to me the difference between answer choice B and E?

Is B wrong because of its exaggerated language "impossible"?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi po1016,

Answer choice (B) indicates a Time Shift error: what has happened in the past may not continue happening in the future, so a nuclear war is still possible. This would be a great answer if the author's argument made any predictions about how nuclear deterrence will work in the future. She does not. The entire argument is about the past: that the policy of deterrence has worked thus far. The author makes no predictions as to whether it will continue to work in the future, which is why answer choice (B) is irrelevant.

Essentially, the author makes a causal argument: a third world war hasn't happened (yet), because of the policy of nuclear deterrence:

Nuclear deterrence (cause) Avoid third world war (effect)

Answer choice (E) raises the possibility of another cause, which is a common way of weakening causal arguments.

Let me know if this helps!

[ashpine17]

What is the problem with A? Wouldn't that provide another reason why nuclear war hasn't happened? not because of fear of nuclear war but because it is too expensive?

[ashpine17]

I tried to simplify things as best I can

Premise: No nuclear war has broken out among major countries
Conclusion: Nuclear deterrence has worked

I thought the flaw in the argument was that even if we accept the premise, perhaps something else is deterring nations from engaging in nuclear war so I thought perhaps there were economic considerations, that nuclear war would be bad in terms of economic loss and I thought A addressed the economic aspect of my pre-phase.

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine,

You're right in how you've broken down the argument, but note that answer choice (A) is consistent with the argument's conclusion. Answer choice (A) could give a reason why deterrence has prevented a war. If the expense of maintaining nuclear stockpiles has made it more difficult for countries to engage in nuclear conflict, then the economic burden of nuclear deterrence has prevented a war. Thus, deterrence has prevented a war! This is just more of an explanation of why the deterrence policy had the effect of preventing war.

You're right that we should be looking for an alternative cause of the avoidance of war, but, as I explained, answer choice (A) ties the avoidance to the deterrence policy, which is ultimately what the argument wants. If something OUTSIDE the deterrence policy prevented war, that's a problem for the argument, and that's what answer choice (E) talks about when it explicitly says "some other factor". That other factor actually doesn't matter, and when answer choice (E) says "recognition of the economic value", that's just an example of "some other factor". It's also not consistent with the conclusion of the argument, unlike answer choice (A), where the economic factor is precisely an economic factor tied to deterrence, not outside it.

Robert Carroll

[Snomen]

I had a problem with identifying which one of the two sentences is a Conclusion? The first one or the last one? Can you also please provide a tip if one exists...on how to quickly find Conclusion on the arguments like that.
Thank you in advance!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi snowmen,

It's the first sentence. The key to finding the main conclusion is to find the statement that is supported by the argument, but doesn't provide any support for the argument. When I get stuck between two different options, I try to use premise and conclusion indicators to help me test to help me understand what relationship is being described. I try each sentence as a premise, and as a conclusion to see which way makes sense.

Let's look at how this would work in this stimulus.

Because the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked so far, therefore the proof is that a third world war has not happened.

Because the third world war has not happened, therefore the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked so far.

Both are a bit awkward, but the second makes more sense.

The because....therefore test works broadly, but in this specific case, I would say there's a much better hint. The last sentence gives "proof" of something. That's another way of saying a reason, or a premise. The idea of proof is a supporting idea, and therefore, it's not likely to be our main conclusion.

Hope that helps!